British and commonwealth rocket development

[Ry01tank]

Eh, BOMARC and SAGE were still all about countering Soviet over-the-pole bombers and not missiles.

Randy

I know that, i was more refering to the upcoming threat of ballistic missiles over Bombers

Missiles for defense of the huge Canadian airspace was outright needed to intecept stuff, Arrow was designed to be fast because of it (a lot of ground to cover).

Ultimately it came down to needs shifting a bit to cancel it outright

I think more that Blue Streak Centaur appears in place of Europa 1. So it wouldn't have such an impact on the Apollo program.

A licensed production would be expensive, but as a quick and dirty cheap way to bypass second stage development its a good idea

Though assuming Blue Streak launches in 65 with a good flight rate, it will likely need uprating by the mid 70s and a replacement in the 80s

Basically think what the Delta II did to the base Delta, stretch some tanks, modify some stuff and add boosters to it

Blue Streak would need a new name, maybe Maple Jack, or go with a king or queen and name it the Victoria in honer of the queen, there is already the Victoria Cross and Canada celabrates Victoria Day as a 3 day weekend

Ultimately though the only realistic TL with Britain launching stuff is if Europa works better then OTL, that way UK stays involved

 

[Juumanistra]

A manned Commonwealth Program would likely happen in the 70's, Britain is still struggling in the 60s

Even for a Canadian who describes himself as a "Canadian Patriot with Social Conservative leanings (not a nutjob)"
A manned Program is a step too far

I agree with you: A manned mission from a Commonwealth space program, in a world we'd recognize, is not happening in the Sixties barring truly extraordinary circumstances. And by "extraordinary circumstances", I am talking about a chain of events which, somehow, causes the Americans to give the Commonwealth both the spacecraft and the booster, with no monetary strings attached. A sort of Project Emily but with man-rated orbital launchers. Which...well, I am a fan of not discounting low-probability events, but the insane chain of circumstances necessary for that to happen is hard to swallow even for me.

That said, I kind of want to come up with such a scenario, that involves a Mercury-scale capsule launched aboard a Delta, just so that in universe there's a joke that all you need to get a Thor from the United States is a polite request in a posh accent.

But the logic of work-share remains the same in 1955 as in 1975. And if you've got established patterns of cooperation between the major players in a Commonwealth space program, it is likely those patterns will continue forward. So if, at the genesis of the Commonwealth space program, Canada's handling the payload and the upper stage, it's only logically Canada will continue to do that going forward. And when a manned program does eventually come around, a manned capsule is just another kind of payload, and so it is Canada's God-given right to be responsible for that. (Or so sayeth the Canadian space cadets when that point becomes contentious, at any rate.)

Europa didn't perform well, which was why it was canceled and Black Arrow didn't use Blue Streak

Europa wasn't cancelled for poor performance. It was cancelled because Britain left ELDO and, if ELDO was going to have to design a new first stage to replace Blue Streak, there was no reason to keep using Coralie and Astris when you can craft stages optimized for your new first stage.

Black Arrow not using Blue Streak is kind of my point? As while Europa was generally a failure, its failings did not involve Blue Streak. The problems came from Coralie and especially Astris. As Blue Streak was reliably working, the only reason for the UK to leave ELDO was because they believed that the French and West Germans couldn't put together reliably working stages and that, if Britain wanted a satellite launcher, it would need to build it domestically. And that would've rather easy, as you only need your upper stages, because you've got a perfectly functional booster stage that has had a half-dozen successful test flights to its name. And then the farce reaches its zenith when Britain does build a domestic launcher, which doesn't use Blue Streak at all.

Having people in space in the 60s would be pushing it, likely a manned capsule in the 70s would be likely as it would require a modified Blue Streak design with all the changes for manned missions

An improbable event in an improbable scenario, to be sure, but if you Limeys In Spaaaaaace while the Beatles are still together, there are ways to do it. The hitch being that they're not exactly going to get anyone singing "Rule Britannia", as those ways amount to being handed flight-ready hardware and painting the Union Jack on it or acquiring a seat on *Gemini or Apollo flights. Assuming NASA would even play ball with either, what it's going to cost to do any of those things is a matter left to the writer's imagination. Except the Americans will never, ever let it be forgotten.

I think more that Blue Streak Centaur appears in place of Europa 1. So it wouldn't have such an impact on the Apollo program.

It wouldn't be a major impact, no, but there's enough time to launch a lunar probe before Apollo 11. Which may or may not contribute in some way to the success of the mission, but more information is more information, and you can bet that any successful Commonwealth lunar probe will be touted as having helped put a man on the Moon by the space programs leadership for prestige reasons, if nothing else. There'd also be plenty of time for other unmanned missions to contribute to and coordinate with future Apollo missions.

I've actually got an idea for a reference mission in this vein that I need to sit down and crunch some numbers on, to see if it's as viable as I think it is from just eyeballing numbers. I'll see about fleshing it out at some point and posting it if the math actually works.

 

[Ry01tank]

I agree with you: A manned mission from a Commonwealth space program, in a world we'd recognize, is not happening in the Sixties barring truly extraordinary circumstances. And by "extraordinary circumstances", I am talking about a chain of events which, somehow, causes the Americans to give the Commonwealth both the spacecraft and the booster, with no monetary strings attached. A sort of Project Emily but with man-rated orbital launchers. Which...well, I am a fan of not discounting low-probability events, but the insane chain of circumstances necessary for that to happen is hard to swallow even for me.

That said, I kind of want to come up with such a scenario, that involves a Mercury-scale capsule launched aboard a Delta, just so that in universe there's a joke that all you need to get a Thor from the United States is a polite request in a posh accent.

Delta is my favorite rocket so I agree

I doubt the Americans would give away technology, however. The only way for the UK to launch in the 60s is by keeping the Colonies. a big part of the troubles Britain had was the debt, reconstruction, and loss of revenue due to not having colonies to extract resources out of.
Maybe if UK/France kept the Suez UK might be able to afford a rocket program.

But the logic of work-share remains the same in 1955 as in 1975. And if you've got established patterns of cooperation between the major players in a Commonwealth space program, it is likely those patterns will continue forward. So if, at the genesis of the Commonwealth space program, Canada's handling the payload and the upper stage, it's only logically Canada will continue to do that going forward. And when a manned program does eventually come around, a manned capsule is just another kind of payload, and so it is Canada's God-given right to be responsible for that. (Or so sayeth the Canadian space cadets when that point becomes contentious, at any rate.)

My only concern is Avro Canada becoming a shell corporation kept alive by the upper stage. Arrow being killed WILL cause a lot of issues for them due to the wasted capital which i doubt it could survive, even with the upper-stage contract. That said the contract would have to be active before Arrow was killed, as American companies quickly hired the design team, you could very easily end up with OTL talent loss

A manned capsule would be divisive for whoever builds it, its likely Canada and UK would bid and fight over it.

Europa wasn't cancelled for poor performance. It was cancelled because Britain left ELDO and, if ELDO was going to have to design a new first stage to replace Blue Streak, there was no reason to keep using Coralie and Astris when you can craft stages optimized for your new first stage.

Black Arrow not using Blue Streak is kind of my point? As while Europa was generally a failure, its failings did not involve Blue Streak. The problems came from Coralie and especially Astris. As Blue Streak was reliably working, the only reason for the UK to leave ELDO was because they believed that the French and West Germans couldn't put together reliably working stages and that, if Britain wanted a satellite launcher, it would need to build it domestically. And that would've rather easy, as you only need your upper stages, because you've got a perfectly functional booster stage that has had a half-dozen successful test flights to its name. And then the farce reaches its zenith when Britain does build a domestic launcher, which doesn't use Blue Streak at all.

My knowledge of UK and pre-Ariane stuff comes from Scott Manley video's i am not a subject expert by any means

An improbable event in an improbable scenario, to be sure, but if you Limeys In Spaaaaaace while the Beatles are still together, there are ways to do it. The hitch being that they're not exactly going to get anyone singing "Rule Britannia", as those ways amount to being handed flight-ready hardware and painting the Union Jack on it or acquiring a seat on *Gemini or Apollo flights. Assuming NASA would even play ball with either, what it's going to cost to do any of those things is a matter left to the writer's imagination. Except the Americans will never, ever let it be forgotten.

60's manned uk flight would need a dedicated effort to do it, with priorities for the Cold War and at-home issues the will was not there. to make the manned flight happen would need a huge POD of Britain doing better somehow

It wouldn't be a major impact, no, but there's enough time to launch a lunar probe before Apollo 11. Which may or may not contribute in some way to the success of the mission, but more information is more information, and you can bet that any successful Commonwealth lunar probe will be touted as having helped put a man on the Moon by the space programs leadership for prestige reasons, if nothing else. There'd also be plenty of time for other unmanned missions to contribute to and coordinate with future Apollo missions.

I've actually got an idea for a reference mission in this vein that I need to sit down and crunch some numbers on, to see if it's as viable as I think it is from just eyeballing numbers. I'll see about fleshing it out at some point and posting it if the math actually works.

If you use Gemini as a base calculate an abort tower into it, ejection seats would kill the crew

Overall i agree that manned missions should happen, its just drastically impractical without an early 50's pod

 

[Sasza]

It wouldn't be a major impact, no, but there's enough time to launch a lunar probe before Apollo 11. Which may or may not contribute in some way to the success of the mission, but more information is more information, and you can bet that any successful Commonwealth lunar probe will be touted as having helped put a man on the Moon by the space programs leadership for prestige reasons, if nothing else. There'd also be plenty of time for other unmanned missions to contribute to and coordinate with future Apollo missions.

I've actually got an idea for a reference mission in this vein that I need to sit down and crunch some numbers on, to see if it's as viable as I think it is from just eyeballing numbers. I'll see about fleshing it out at some point and posting it if the math actually works.

That would be interesting. So let's assume that Blue Streak - Centaur has been flying since 1965. Additionally, in 1967 there is a third stage using the RZ.20, which will allow the launch of several missions towards the moon and single ones to the outer planets.

Now it depends on whether the UK, in order to have more bullets, allows the use of Blue Streak to Europe. In my opinion, we would more likely see a further evolution towards the proposed SEREB or clustered Diamond B stages

 

[BlueTrousers]

Europa wasn't cancelled for poor performance. It was cancelled because Britain left ELDO and, if ELDO was going to have to design a new first stage to replace Blue Streak, there was no reason to keep using Coralie and Astris when you can craft stages optimized for your new first stage.

Coming the other way, the first two stages of Black Arrow were designed to be capable of being modified to act as upper stages for a Blue Streak, so the potential is there.

That said, I kind of want to come up with such a scenario, that involves a Mercury-scale capsule launched aboard a Delta, just so that in universe there's a joke that all you need to get a Thor from the United States is a polite request in a posh accent.

TBF, the UK did receive 60 Thors. Getting to keep them after the end of Project Emily doesn't require too much of a leap. And a Thor-Black Knight isn't a million miles from a Thor-Delta.

Maybe if UK/France kept the Suez UK might be able to afford a rocket program.

I don't think it's so much the finances, though that's an issue, as the damage to national confidence that resulted from the Suez Crisis.

 

[RanulfC]

My knowledge of UK and pre-Ariane stuff comes from Scott Manley video's i am not a subject expert by any means

There's a book, (and website which I can't find atm, anyone else have a link) called "A Vertical Empire" that has an in-depth look at early British rocket research and vehicles which was actually pretty extensive.

Randy

 

[MKD]

RAF Spadeadam space port anyone?

 

[Ry01tank]

RAF Spadeadam space port anyone?

If its in Britain it would work. British sites were considered OTL but the risks of dropping stages on oil rigs and scandinavia ruled it out

Think china dropping rockets on its own people, and they use HYPERGOLICS which melt your lungs

 

[Ry01tank]

There's a book, (and website which I can't find atm, anyone else have a link) called "A Vertical Empire" that has an in-depth look at early British rocket research and vehicles which was actually pretty extensive.

Randy

Do you know any good books on the Delta besides the areojet one, want to read more on it

 

[Ry01tank]

That would be interesting. So let's assume that Blue Streak - Centaur has been flying since 1965. Additionally, in 1967 there is a third stage using the RZ.20, which will allow the launch of several missions towards the moon and single ones to the outer planets.

Now it depends on whether the UK, in order to have more bullets, allows the use of Blue Streak to Europe. In my opinion, we would more likely see a further evolution towards the proposed SEREB or clustered Diamond B stages

Ya

Coming the other way, the first two stages of Black Arrow were designed to be capable of being modified to act as upper stages for a Blue Streak, so the potential is there.

TBF, the UK did receive 60 Thors. Getting to keep them after the end of Project Emily doesn't require too much of a leap. And a Thor-Black Knight isn't a million miles from a Thor-Delta.

Those were used later on for Thor and Delta flights, you would buttefly a lot of later rocket development

I don't think it's so much the finances, though that's an issue, as the damage to national confidence that resulted from the Suez Crisis.

Finances are everything, the UK was a global power due to inter-Empire trade. When the colonies became independant Britain lost alot of revenue from taxes to even companies (UK used to own alot of mid-east oil fields).
UK had to pay for the lend lease stuff bought in the war, along with the marshall plan rebuilding
This is why most of the Royal Navy ended up being scrapped or sold off immediately post war

The Soviet Union in the late 60s had most of its efforts on getting to parity with the US military in missiles, up to 15 percent of the GDP was spend on just rockets. A soviet rocket engineer said that the Soviet Union chose ICBM's over the moon due to this
And this was why Nixon was why Nixon was suprised when the Soviets were happy for arms limitations, as it would drastically reduce their economic burden on military spending

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

And of course since it's still in the "color" era it's name will be "Red Rover" no doubt

Randy

Hmmm... "Red Rover, Red Rover, I call Jim Chamberlain over"?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Woomera's not ideal for exactly the reason you said -- that the heartland of Australia's population tends to be due east of Woomera and thus equatorial launches can't be made

See below.

As IOTL, NASA was more than willing to take on anyone who wanted to participate in Apollo, but you had to pay your own way and move at NASA's speed. Which precisely no one else could do because of the sheer amount of money being thrown around during Peak Apollo.)

Do you have a citation for that?

Fly TTL's equivalent of the Gemini 6A/Gemini 7 rendezvous, but outright give your Gemini 7 analogue to the Commonwealth and launch it from your choice of launch site. (Which, in 1965, is still probably going to be Woomera.)

Oh, SO not happening.. 1) getting the infrastructure for a manned mission especially for a US rocket, and not only that, but one that uses different fuels, isn't going to happen.
2) as mentioned in the quote above, you can't launch east from Woomera, so nothing launched from there can rendezvous with a manned spacecraft launched from Canaveral.

But it's fair to say that the Commonwealth space program will probably want to be involved with Apollo, that NASA always welcomed international partners,

Why? They're having to scrape the funding barrel hard to run their own program. Why throw all that away to be a very junior partner in the US program?

but there's enough secondary stuff, like lunar probes and mapping, where an independent Commonwealth space program could meaningfully contribute and be included programmatically into Apollo's planning

Maybe. But, the US needed most of those probes to get something that worked....

 

[Juumanistra]

Do you have a citation for that?

I'm relying on that bit of Apollo folklore/apocrypha that at one point in the early Sixties, where NASA approached the British government about participating in a space exploration endeavor. Britain was interested and asked what they would be expected to contribute. The number proposed by NASA was, apparently, higher than the whole of the sum which the British government was spent a year on all scientific research of every sort. And Britain was subsequently uninterested after that. I want to say the anecdote is in A Vertical Empire, but I also have heard the tale in several forms over the years.

So no citation, beyond a half-remembered anecdote and a hunch. Though NASA's approach to international cooperation with its development programs wasn't much different in the Shuttle's development, where partners interested in participating in the Shuttle program were initially expected to just give NASA burlap sacks of money and be grateful for the chance to bask in the glory that was the perfection NASA was building. (Though in NASA's defense, its tune did change once having international partners went from being a feather in its cap to being considered an institutional necessity to save the Shuttle program because of its ever-deteriorating fiscal prospects.)

Oh, SO not happening.. 1) getting the infrastructure for a manned mission especially for a US rocket, and not only that, but one that uses different fuels, isn't going to happen.
2) as mentioned in the quote above, you can't launch east from Woomera, so nothing launched from there can rendezvous with a manned spacecraft launched from Canaveral.

No, no. The limeys, Canucks, and/or diggers get to be spam in a can. So they launch first and then the glorious American spacecraft -- well, the glorious American spacecraft manned by actual Americans -- does the maneuvering and makes the rendezvous, just as God intended. If the Canadians and Australians object, well, maybe they should have just embraced freedom harder and thrown off the yoke of the British imperialism when they had the chance. (And not at all because something launched from the Cape can hit 50-degrees of inclination, while something from Woomera can't hit 28.5 degrees.)

More seriously, is it ridiculous and requires Uncle Sam to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of putting an English speaker with a non-American accent in space? Absolutely. But national prestige have caused the expenditure of more money on sillier things. Devising a set of circumstances where that can be plausible is rather hard, but at the same time, it's an interesting challenge if you want to start really mucking about with Fifties and Sixties politics to make it even vaguely plausible.

Why? They're having to scrape the funding barrel hard to run their own program. Why throw all that away to be a very junior partner in the US program?

Speculating on what an "International Apollo" might look like is challenging due to just how many butterflies it requires to even begin to look workable, I'd think it would evolve to function like the various international contributions to the Shuttle. With NASA getting to keep its developmental control of the core program, allowing it to have its fiefdom and have the independence to whatever it wants, while its partners develop small complementary things off of a collective capabilities wish-list. (E.g. Spacelab.) So Apollo would be Apollo as we know it, because the Soviets need beaten to the Moon within a decade and the only way to meet that goal is to make sure NASA develops everything it needs on its own.

But if the Commonwealth is running its own space program and it's planning on launching a lunar probe, well, of course NASA will happily consult and make sure its own programs can make use of anything useful that might come of it. But the cost of what the Commonwealth space program is doing is entirely their business and, if they do nothing, it doesn't matter to Apollo's ultimate success.

Maybe. But, the US needed most of those probes to get something that worked....

The thought was, rather, that the Commonwealth would develop its own probe(s) and/or lander(s), supplementing Ranger and Surveyor, as well as pursuing whatever scientific missions they may have of their own. Which is a problem, because that requires money, and the Treasury is infamous for having the stinginess of, well, the Treasury. But at the same time, if you have a Commonwealth space program, it's going to need payloads -- historically, I believe, there were all of six satellites from Britain, Canada, and Australia in the Sixties -- and money is going to be spent on something in that regard. Or the lack of payloads is an albatross to doom the Commonwealth's space program, if you're preferring that tack for a TL.

 

[Ry01tank]

See below.


Do you have a citation for that?

Oh, SO not happening.. 1) getting the infrastructure for a manned mission especially for a US rocket, and not only that, but one that uses different fuels, isn't going to happen.
2) as mentioned in the quote above, you can't launch east from Woomera, so nothing launched from there can rendezvous with a manned spacecraft launched from Canaveral.


Why? They're having to scrape the funding barrel hard to run their own program. Why throw all that away to be a very junior partner in the US program?

Maybe. But, the US needed most of those probes to get something that worked....

I agree with your assesment

I'm relying on that bit of Apollo folklore/apocrypha that at one point in the early Sixties, where NASA approached the British government about participating in a space exploration endeavor. Britain was interested and asked what they would be expected to contribute. The number proposed by NASA was, apparently, higher than the whole of the sum which the British government was spent a year on all scientific research of every sort. And Britain was subsequently uninterested after that. I want to say the anecdote is in A Vertical Empire, but I also have heard the tale in several forms over the years.

What you read was wrong and is fucking opposite from reality, a "partner" nation to Apollo would be expected to provide huge ass funding, and any "partner" would not be responsible for ANYTHING on the critical path to landing on the moon. It was an American program, if a partner nation got on board the MOST they could expect was experiments flying (and wouldn't be a priority either)

So no citation, beyond a half-remembered anecdote and a hunch. Though NASA's approach to international cooperation with its development programs wasn't much different in the Shuttle's development, where partners interested in participating in the Shuttle program were initially expected to just give NASA burlap sacks of money and be grateful for the chance to bask in the glory that was the perfection NASA was building. (Though in NASA's defense, its tune did change once having international partners went from being a feather in its cap to being considered an institutional necessity to save the Shuttle program because of its ever-deteriorating fiscal prospects.)

Nixon was recorded asking a random thought he had of internationalizing Shuttle. It was shot down fast due to it entailing the US to give up cutting edge technology for a little bit of money. And it would essentially make the program unkillable. NASA partnerships for shuttle were mostly science package related, like spacelab and stuff, not anything on the vehicle itself

from E of Pi when i asked him this, he gave me this

The prospect of significant European participation in shuttle development had been troubling to Tom Whitehead for some time; as the March 1970 presidential statement on space had been drafted, he had been skeptical of any specific commitment to space cooperation. Whitehead, by 1971 the director of the new White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, was no longer working for Peter Flanigan on NASA issues, but occasionally became involved. In a February 1971 memorandum, Whitehead took a very skeptical position with respect to NASA’s attempts to engage Europe in the U.S. post-Apollo program. He noted “NASA is aggressively pursuing European funding for their post-Apollo program. It superficially sounds like the ‘cooperation’ the President wants,” but asked “is this what the President would really want if we thought it through?” Whitehead was concerned that “if NASA successfully gets a European commitment of $1 billion [to the shuttle program], the President and the Congress will have been locked into NASA’s grand plans because the political cost of reneging would be too high.” He suggested that “the kind of cooperation now being talked up will have the effect of giving away our space launch, space operations, and related know-how at 10 cents on the dollar.”1

Logsdon, John M.. After Apollo?: Richard Nixon and the American Space Program (Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology) (p. 198). Palgrave Macmillan US. Kindle Edition.

EHRLICHMAN: “Well, Mr. President, you have urged that we get international involvement in the space program . . . [You have said] let’s get an actor up there from a foreign government. But that’s been interpreted to a large extent by NASA, as bringing foreign countries into the development of the space shuttle . . . To the extent that we have developed a very significant technology here which is all ours, it would seem to some of us that we risk giving that away for a pretty small amount of money.”
FLANIGAN: “I am all for getting their astronauts up there and letting them walk around . . . We get a lot of visibility. But I wonder if for a little bit of money we aren’t selling our heritage.”
NIXON: “Well then, don’t do it . . . What I want is symbolism. Nothing more. Give us a little cosmetics . . . What you are doing for cosmetics, do for cosmetics. Let’s appear to be very liberal.”2

Logsdon, John M.. After Apollo?: Richard Nixon and the American Space Program (Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology) (p. 198). Palgrave Macmillan US. Kindle Edition.

No, no. The limeys, Canucks, and/or diggers get to be spam in a can. So they launch first and then the glorious American spacecraft -- well, the glorious American spacecraft manned by actual Americans -- does the maneuvering and makes the rendezvous, just as God intended. If the Canadians and Australians object, well, maybe they should have just embraced freedom harder and thrown off the yoke of the British imperialism when they had the chance. (And not at all because something launched from the Cape can hit 50-degrees of inclination, while something from Woomera can't hit 28.5 degrees.)

Please stop refering to Canadians, Australians and British by slur's, its rude. And we have had freedom more then you, us British colonies have a more communitarian outlook over outright libertarian values

So shipping a whole ass Titan 2, building a launchpad, and timing the missions, for a ONE TIME flight is somehow practical, you would be better off paying for a flight to get an astronaut on board, which wouldn't happen

More seriously, is it ridiculous and requires Uncle Sam to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of putting an English speaker with a non-American accent in space? Absolutely. But national prestige have caused the expenditure of more money on sillier things. Devising a set of circumstances where that can be plausible is rather hard, but at the same time, it's an interesting challenge if you want to start really mucking about with Fifties and Sixties politics to make it even vaguely plausible.

Frankly, its ridiculous to the point where Kennedy pledging to land on MARS by the end of the decade instead of the moon is more plausible
Having a brit, Canadian or Australian in space in the 60s requires HUGE changes
like WW2, britian keeping its colonies

Britain paying for a seat on a Gemini is already on the cusp of ridiculousness

Speculating on what an "International Apollo" might look like is challenging due to just how many butterflies it requires to even begin to look workable, I'd think it would evolve to function like the various international contributions to the Shuttle. With NASA getting to keep its developmental control of the core program, allowing it to have its fiefdom and have the independence to whatever it wants, while its partners develop small complementary things off of a collective capabilities wish-list. (E.g. Spacelab.) So Apollo would be Apollo as we know it, because the Soviets need beaten to the Moon within a decade and the only way to meet that goal is to make sure NASA develops everything it needs on its own.

Shuttle or Apollo, can't have both

Internationalized Apollo would be stupid besides "partnerships" that we see in OTL, the US would not want it around when Shuttle flies

If NASA funding is added to by international countries, there is something wrong. and if the US Gov even allowed foriegn countries to fund NASA. the US would lower the budget as it wouldn't be needed

But if the Commonwealth is running its own space program and it's planning on launching a lunar probe, well, of course NASA will happily consult and make sure its own programs can make use of anything useful that might come of it. But the cost of what the Commonwealth space program is doing is entirely their business and, if they do nothing, it doesn't matter to Apollo's ultimate success.

Having a LAUNCHER in the 60s is far fetched. a MANNED program and probe program is too far

The thought was, rather, that the Commonwealth would develop its own probe(s) and/or lander(s), supplementing Ranger and Surveyor, as well as pursuing whatever scientific missions they may have of their own. Which is a problem, because that requires money, and the Treasury is infamous for having the stinginess of, well, the Treasury. But at the same time, if you have a Commonwealth space program, it's going to need payloads -- historically, I believe, there were all of six satellites from Britain, Canada, and Australia in the Sixties -- and money is going to be spent on something in that regard. Or the lack of payloads is an albatross to doom the Commonwealth's space program, if you're preferring that tack for a TL.

You would need to have TOTAL commitment by the Commonwealth countries for it to work, but probes to the moon in the mid 60s would not happen

Don't mean to be mean, but what your asking requires WW2 to be different and Britain to retain its colonies (which America was against)

 

[Juumanistra]

What you read was wrong and is fucking opposite from reality, a "partner" nation to Apollo would be expected to provide huge ass funding, and any "partner" would not be responsible for ANYTHING on the critical path to landing on the moon. It was an American program, if a partner nation got on board the MOST they could expect was experiments flying (and wouldn't be a priority either)

Nixon was recorded asking a random thought he had of internationalizing Shuttle. It was shot down fast due to it entailing the US to give up cutting edge technology for a little bit of money. And it would essentially make the program unkillable. NASA partnerships for shuttle were mostly science package related, like spacelab and stuff, not anything on the vehicle itself

To begin with, I fear I have not been clear in my usage of "International Apollo". As my brain keeps lumping in all of the Apollo-necessitated space science programs -- e.g. Ranger and especially Surveyor -- into Apollo. Which, as a matter of terminology, is not strictly true. When I have spoken of "International Apollo", I've not meant participation in the actual Apollo program, because no one was able to pay to move at the speed NASA wanted and, even if somebody had been, it's unlikely NASA would have wanted to make itself reliant on anyone else. What I've meant is participation in that wide set of space science programs through complementary national missions.

Returning to what was actually typed, isn't that mostly the point I was making? "International Apollo" would be a repeat of the Shuttle's international component, where NASA initially welcomed international "partners" whose job was to give them money to build what NASA wanted in the way NASA chose to, and be grateful for the experience. Which would not get very far due to the goals of the parties being incompatible. But eventually, because of the diplomatic virtue of appearing to cooperate, you get a settlement of the matter with international cooperation from foreign partners through projects which complement and support NASA's core development program, of which Spacelab is, indeed, the ur example. While you could get cooperation for experiments to actually land on the Moon with Apollo missions, if you're going to get an "International Apollo" in this mold, its most likely form is in internationally built unmanned lunar scientific missions which contributes to Apollo by furthering the general understanding of the lunar environment.

So shipping a whole ass Titan 2, building a launchpad, and timing the missions, for a ONE TIME flight is somehow practical, you would be better off paying for a flight to get an astronaut on board, which wouldn't happen

I'm not arguing it's practical. And certainly not probable. But if you, as the writer of an allohistorical scenario, want to have a manned Commonwealth mission in a context that isn't too Ministry of Space-y, the point was merely that there are ways to do it that do not involve developing an organic manned spaceflight capability. As strange as they may be, the challenge is making it plausible in context, if that's what you're looking for narratively. And you needn't use the actual Gemini 6A/7 mission as a reference point. It can be used as a point of analogizing: The actual spacecraft involved might radically different, as if there's a Commonwealth space program, Gemini as we know it likely butterflied away.

And yes, simply paying for a seat on a flight would be cheaper and simpler. It's also a tack you can take, if you're looking for something less dramatic. Still has its own political issues -- why should NASA sell a seat in the first place? -- but that's a feature, not a bug, as it forces further development of the context for the allohistorical proposition in question.

Frankly, its ridiculous to the point where Kennedy pledging to land on MARS by the end of the decade instead of the moon is more plausible

I mean, that is what McNamara wanted, and it'd give us an excuse to break out the atomic bomb assembly line to feed Ol' Boom-Boom...

Having a LAUNCHER in the 60s is far fetched. a MANNED program and probe program is too far

That there wasn't a launcher was a historical accident, given that both Blue Streak and Black Arrow worked and flew in the Sixties. Having the Commonwealth launch an artificial satellite in the Sixties is a stretch, but only just, as the payloads were there and Black Arrow, with a shoestring budget and prolonged development for it, did eventually launch a satellite. Having a sustained Commonwealth space program capable of launching a lunar probe in the Sixties is far-fetched. Having a Commonwealth space program that has a manned spacecraft is...yes, I concur, a bridge too far, outside of very narrow circumstances that are engineered to avoid the development of an organic manned spaceflight capability and whose politics may require ASB.

But the discussions of "the Commonwealth space program contributes an unmanned lunar mission to the manned exploration of the Moon" and "bodge together a manned Commonwealth space mission in the Sixties" are two different allohistorical discussions and are incompatible in the same timeline, barring -- as you suggest -- very radical changes whose world is not one we could easily recognize.

 

[e of pi]

Nixon was recorded asking a random thought he had of internationalizing Shuttle.

Nixon's "pet idea" was to fly international astronauts on Apollo or Shuttle early, not to internationalize Shuttle. He was as against the latter as any other member of his administration, Congress, or the DoD.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Reading through this thread reminded me of the Selene Project which seems to be the only British-French focused space program on this website?

Either way, what do you people think about the plausibility of said story?

 

[Mike D]

If its in Britain it would work. British sites were considered OTL but the risks of dropping stages on oil rigs and scandinavia ruled it out

Think china dropping rockets on its own people, and they use HYPERGOLICS which melt your lungs

It's in Cumbria, north east of Carlisle.

I went there once (I don't even remember why we were there, maybe it was an overnight stop when we walked Hadrian's Wall?) and it's bleak. The kind of place that people from Orkneys would spend a few days at and start complaining about how bleak, wet and cold it is. I'm not sure northern UK has the climate for reliable space launches - don't they need at least half decent weather?

 

[Sasza]

Reading through this thread reminded me of the Selene Project which seems to be the only British-French focused space program on this website?

Either way, what do you people think about the plausibility of said story?

I rather want ESA to have more options at the very end, but not to overpay too much. I don't even think about any big missions.

A Gemini-like manned vehicle in the 1970s and when my proposed LDC (although I'm thinking more about the name Black Storm) materializes in the 1980s, there will also be an option for a low-cost glider that will be operated by the LDC.

 

[RanulfC]

Do you know any good books on the Delta besides the Aerojet one, want to read more on it

No books come to mind, though there's a website and papers that you've probably seen:

History of the Delta Launch Vehicle

kevinforsyth.net

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2554&context=space-congress-proceedings

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130hzjx

Randy